Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Seems like good timing for a basic blog rant. It’s been a tough couple of weeks and I’m cranky. Keeping the discussion on matters of politics a little review of the current situation seems in order.

Obamanation remains fixated on their, ‘let’s take over everything’ agenda. The central flaw in their quest beyond public disapproval and even outrage is similar to that of a typical spendthrift. They believe there is still money in the bank if they still have checks.

It’s amazing really. Politicians in both parties have frequently if not continuously committed the same financial sins for which they accuse others. Yet they have no shame for their own misguided actions or for political rhetoric employed as unemployment engulfs our nation.

By our votes we bestow upon them a public trust complete with perks for royalty yet we shed that anchor over two hundred years ago. And with the possible exception of the founding fathers those in public office have a two century record of malfeasance in office. If they were not directly involved with corrupt government they were willing participants by the fact of their incompetent objection.

As noted here elsewhere, notable Republicans like Palin, Romney and Scott Brown support McCain for re-election. Yet it is clear McCain is not a conservative. Which casts doubt on the credentials of the aforementioned.

Mr. Romney, who was supported on this blog since 2008, provided a less than convincing excuse for his endorsement. If McCain’s years of service and experience qualify him as the best choice for American leadership what does that say about his support of shamnesty during the second Bush 43 term? And then there’s Lindsey Graham with similar problems. The GOP has not turned the page toward conservative principles. How will they do that with barely half a year to go before the 2010 elections?

Yes, they are fiercely opposing the current liberal push for a totally out of touch agenda. But what else are they going to do? They believe this strategy against the Obamanation will translate to victory in November. What’s new about that? Sound like politics as usual just as much as the Dems failure on every level since the 2006 midterms.

The GOP fell from grace and have not returned in any meaningful way. The libs are apparently willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Worst of all, they have not drained the swamp. The culture of corruption is alive and well in Washington, DC and around the country in all levels of government.

The voters must drain the swamp in November 2010.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

editor’s note: The quality of this post has suffered as it is Friday and this month’s budget only allows for beer rather than top shelf single malt Scotch. Po’ Stanford. And no images were chosen for this post as none were available at the time of publication to fit the mood.

This is not political rhetoric or some lobbyist’s scheme to support a strategy not in the public interest. It is what this country has been missing lately. Plain, everyday, good old-fashioned American common sense.

An excerpt from a WaPo report on health reform provides a reasonable introduction to what’s wrong and why a step by step approach to reform the wise choice.

Their efforts suggest a return to the frenzied pace of last year’s health-care debate, which prompted more than $200 million in advocacy ads and broke records for lobbying. Companies and trade groups last year hired more than 4,500 lobbyists to influence health reform — amounting to about eight lobbyists for each member of Congress, according to an analysis released last week by the Center for Public Integrity.

Reacting to President Obama’s recent statements that he will move ahead with legislation, health insurance companies have enlisted hundreds of lobbyists in a full-court press against the proposed overhaul, which would force dramatic cuts and increased regulation on the industry. At the same time, insurers are pushing back against a separate bill approved by the House last week that would remove the industry’s antitrust exemption.

Assuming the article’s facts are straight, ‘eight lobbyists for each member of Congress’ should tell you all you need to know. But add to that all the talk of ‘agendas’ and what some POLS are obviously trying to do and it becomes clear there is little in the way of public interest included in this legislative nightmare.

For instance, by itself in the spirit of ’step by step’ do you suppose anyone would object to a ban on deals between drug manufacturers to keep generics off the market? That’s right. The only ones who would object are the drug manufacturers and their lobbyists.

Would anyone object to allowing insurance companies to compete across statelines? Sure, state and local POLS who claim their legislation protects the public by allowing only approved players to participate. Do you suppose any of the same political shenanigans are involved at the state level?

These are some of the cost-cutting ideas that may come from either side of the aisle and appear to have merit without benefit of reading specific legislative language that may render them less than ideal. But the point is without taking unthinkable risk with national debt and deficits in addition to what already exists, doing things step by step would remove the all or nothing pitfalls from what is otherwise just more politcal theatre.

Our nation needs to address health issues. But the manner in which it is being done currently does not resemble anything close to the word reform. You might want to tell your elected representative we should take a break, eliminate the insanity and take a common sense step by step approach to solving health issues.

Sure, the step by step idea has been a GOP mantra for some time now. So if you are a liberal you naturally oppose it. But this post does not suggest all the GOP talk is correct. But there is no benefit to dismissing all the GOP or the Democrats say just to present an argument. The generic deals ban mentioned above may quite possibly be a Democrat’s idea. It seems reasonable. Step by step was proposed by the GOP. Another reasonable idea.

So let’s scrap these reform bills that are nothing more than political agendas. And do it right one piece at a time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Given the current political climate you would be hard pressed to find anyone to suggest the government is competent. At least in matters of public policy and foreign affairs few agree with public officials in the US. Boots on the ground and others who serve in the armed forces and are getting it done when allowed are the exception rather than the rule these days.

Is it possible that over the last several years a bipartisan scheme between the executive and legislative branches of the US government is coming to fruition? The political left and right had a minor media frenzy over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s meddling in Middle East affairs in 2007 with a trip to Syria and elsewhere. Most reports then suggested President Bush opposed the trip as well those raising legal questions about official roles and capacity.

A post on this blog suggested it was political theatre of a bipartisan nature. Again, bipartisan meaning anything but its standard definition. Typically it is used for covering the political backside of both parties by mutual consent. And the Pelosi trip may have been a classic example. And you can expect both sides had hopes of a political upside for themselves and their opposition taking a hit. Here’s a link to the older post featured on this blog.

President Barack Hussein Obama’s World Apology Tour and other appeasement strategies suggest US State Dept outreach to Syria is coincidence and has no connection to the earlier Pelosi trip reported as annoying President Bush in 2007. But you have to wonder if it was one of those seeds planted with hopes of a later harvest. Pelosi’s trip may have thwarted some development that was brewing and hurtful to both parties and a scheme may have avoided that plus provided options for the future both parties wanted. Yet no public announcement of such an agreement was an acceptable political strategy for either party.

It’s still appeasement.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s the brief report on the US kissin’ up to Syria.

US Official, Syrian President Meet in Bid for Improved Ties
VOA News
17 February 2010

One of the highest-ranking U.S. officials to visit Syria in years held talks with Syria’s president Wednesday, one day after Washington nominated its first ambassador to the country since 2005.

The U.S. Under Secretary of State, William Burns, said he and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad spoke candidly while meeting in Damascus. Burns said they discussed both areas of disagreement and common ground.

On Tuesday, the White House named long-time U.S. diplomat Robert Ford to serve as ambassador to Syria. Ford, who is fluent in Arabic, now serves as the U.S. deputy ambassador in Iraq.

Burns called the appointment a “clear sign” of America’s readiness to improve relations and to pursue a comprehensive peace between Arabs and Israelis.

The United States said in June that it planned to reinstate its ambassador to Syria, as part of the Obama administration’s efforts to improve relations with Syria and advance the Middle East peace process.

Ford’s nomination will have to be approved by the U.S. Senate.

The United States withdrew its last ambassador to Syria after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. Many countries have blamed Syria for the assassination, but Damascus has denied involvement.

The U.S. has long accused Syria of supporting Islamic militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which the U.S. considers terrorist organizations. Washington also has voiced concern about Syria’s human rights record and its role in neighboring Lebanon.

The president will try to add clarity in his speech, White House aides said. He will call for a freeze on federal discretionary spending, tax relief targeting middle-income Americans, regulating the financial-services industry and remaking the nation’s immigration laws.

He may also help provide a way to move forward with the signature issue of his first year, an overhaul of the health- care system, which represents about 17 percent of the economy.

The Presidents’ ‘freeze’ proposal is a mere $250 billion over ten years. Over that much time there is little chance POLS won’t find a way to end it and continue to borrow, increase deficits and national debt.

If the President succeeds in providing a middle-class tax cut and passing health related legislation the two will cancel each other out at best. And at worst the tax cut will be outpaced by increased health care taxes and costs that it won’t matter.

With other financial matters as well as immigration it is clear the Obamanation agenda will not change. In keeping with his campaign mode style and community organizing tactics this state of the union message will be more of the same. Proving once again there is no hope and there will be no change from the White House with the current US President.

President Barack Obama will propose extending through 2010 a temporary tax incentive that encourages businesses to accelerate purchases of equipment, an administration official said.

Certainly lowering taxes is a good thing. But tax incentives can be as problematic as any other tax situation. Dangle a carrot that rewards participants with tax breaks to do the government’s bidding. That’s not a good idea. Just reduce taxes for everyone. That’s a job creator and boost for the economy.

President Barack Obama will give $8 billion in economic stimulus money to 13 U.S. rail corridors tomorrow, mostly for high-speed passenger service, an administration official said.

Yup, don’t forget to put pork in your state of the union speech Mr President. High speed rail is nothing more than another earmark and pork barrel spending and a misuse of taxpayer funds. If high speed rail is such a good idea, how come it hasn’t happened yet in the private sector and won’t happen without misusing taxpayer money?

No hope, no change, nothing new, just more campaigning from a President whose failed agenda has been seen for what it is even by those who voted for him. And he has had plenty of help advancing his failed agenda from liberal POLS and RINOs in Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Every politician invokes the use of ’spin’ to some degree and with some frequency during their their term or terms in office. That is the essence of politics. And that is the dominant feature which cripples effective governance. Political games are often defended as a ncessary evil in government and public affairs. Of couse, politicians and those who craft strategy are the only ones who subscribe to that philosphy. And it is responsible for Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts special election held last week.

But politicians and community organizers are addicted to that unfortunate part of the process. Enter President Barack Obama. Defined by supporters, of which there are less these days, as the consummate campaigner President Obama is once again embracing that which had served him well in getting elected. Even though it is largely responsible for his falling approval rating, failing agenda, dismal first year in office and party prospects in 2010.

White House officials say they understand why emotions are running high. The president’s top political aide says President Obama has had to take unpopular action to deal with an economic crisis far worse than anyone expected when he took office.

David Axelrod says he warned the president early on that his public approval ratings were likely to drop. “I said to him a year ago, Mr. President your numbers are going to be considerably worse a year from now than they are today because you can not govern in an economy like this without great disaffection,” he said.

Axelrod told the ABC television program This Week that he believes the president did the right thing. “I have no regrets about that. I think history will look back and say the President of the United States met his responsibilities,” he said.

Someone is smoking crack if they think reaction to Obama’s agenda is due to ‘an economic crisis far worse than anyone expected when he took office.’ Or have they forgotten all the Bush bashing in his last year of office over the ‘worst financial crisis since the Great Depression’?

Of course Axlerod suggests what history will say about Obama. There is nothing he can point to currently putting the President in a favorable light. The same goes for the President and the Democratic party’s agenda. Nothing positive is promised until years in the future with the expectation it can be passed and the sham will not be noticed for years.

With all this President Obama continues the spin strategy of politics.

Going into year two, political strategists expect the president to re-center himself Wednesday as a hard-fighting, bank-busting, Obama-on-your-side jobs president, while acknowledging the hiccups in getting to this point.

At the State of the Union, the state of the presidency may be the question that most needs answering.

“It’s going to be jobs, jobs, jobs. Economy, economy, economy,” said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. “Year two’s gonna be this guy.”

And when that doesn’t work it will be some other guy. The never ending campaign continues.

Now, he is taking a more populist approach - focusing on the day-to-day issues that create money woes for many families.

He says it is part of an effort to show the administration cares about workers who are struggling to pay their bills or have anxieties about losing their jobs.

An entire year goes by before the tranformational President of hope and change recognizes the economy and jobs are the largest concern for voters. How reassuring.

Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama will propose a three-year freeze on federal spending outside of national security to save an estimated $250 billion over a decade as part of an effort to rein in record deficits, administration officials said.

Let’s see. Push a New Deal, eighty year liberal pursuit of the nanny state holy grail of government-run healthcare at 2 1/2 trillion dollars and then suggest a pultry $250 billion savings over the same time period as a new agenda strategy. It is remarkable his ratings are quoted at only down to about 50%. There must be a considerable number of people in favor of more job killing entitlements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The U.S. Senate election enters its final “do or die” days as President Obama heads to the Hub today to try to save his domestic agenda with a last-ditch pitch for Democrat Martha Coakley, while insurgent Republican Scott Brown criss-crosses the state on a wave of anti-Washington momentum.

“Initially, I thought it was me against the machine, but now it’s us against the machine,” Brown told a cheering crowd at a Plymouth campaign rally yesterday. Brown has vowed to help defeat the president’s flagship health-care legislation.

While some earlier reports indicated the Boston Herald and perhaps other MSM sources were giving balanced coverage to the special election in Taxachusetts the example presented here is not a case in point. It may be that the need to increase readership in the advent of a serious GOP challenge to the long held liberal lion’s seat in the US Senate has been discarded. Scott Brown’s lead in the polls may have caused the MSM to remember which political party butters their bread.

But the excerpt above may be enough coverage for Scott Brown in this otherwise Martha Coakley dominated report from the Herald. Voters are growing increasingly angry about politics as usual that people like President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed would end as of the 2008 presidential campaign and the 2006 midterms, respectively.

The far left and perhaps most liberals are angry at President Obama for not ending the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan immediately as well as adopting many of his predecessor’s policies on matters like Gitmo and the Patriot Act. Now, in the face of 2010 elections next November Democrats are all over the map on how to get re-elected as party leaders try to force an unpopular agenda on the nation while ignoring pressing issues like jobs, deficits and astronomical national debt.

Certainly members of the GOP and conservative voters oppose wins by the Democrats. But now independents are heavily favoring Republican candidates after feeling suckered in the last election. And liberals are not exclusively supporting Democratic candidates or incumbents. The fates of Senators Nelson and Landrieu may make that case this fall.

For the President to alter his schedule to accommodate Coakley’s failing campaign with a whistle stop speaks volumes on the trouble her pursuit of Ted Kennedy’s vacant senate seat faces.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Two shining examples of elected Representatives in the House allowing their votes to be bought for so-called health reform are Bart Stupak and Joseph Cao. A pair in the Senate likewise demonstrate the 60 vote fraud that is the Democratic party’s reform, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson.

After a brief review of manager’s amendment of Senate Majority Leader and vote buyer (with your money) Harry Reid a search of the vague and openended legislative item produced 19 references to abortion. From instances of where federal funding is prohibited for abortions to where it is allowed and various provisions demonstrating differences between federal and state wiggle room on the topic Reid’s back room deals are a masterpiece of arrogance and ignoring public opposition to this bill.

One might not expect provisions regarding firearms possession and similar items within a bill on health reform but that merely emphasizes the culture of corruption in Washington and a common description in most legislation allowing ‘and for other purposes’ to cover any deal POLS make.

Here are a few less contentious references to the Harry Reid manager’s amendment.

There are arrangements for using an arbitrary percentage to determine among other things rebates to premium payers under certain circumstances.

from the amendment….

In determining the percentages under paragraph (1), a State shall seek to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers, competition in the health insurance market in the State, and value for consumers so that premiums are used for clinical services and quality improvements.

‘‘(3) ENFORCEMENT.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations for enforcing the provisions of this section and may provide for appropriate penalties.

Sure, the public sector, aka, your government will ’seek to ensure’ participation, competition and value for the consumer in a role in which it has never succeeded. But you can bet they will come up with penalties. After all, what a better way to raise more revenue from the private sector to waste on more governmet interference. It’s like you paying a thief to rob you.

On the issue of more bureaucracy and more waste comes another

‘‘(d) MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT DATA CENTERS.— ‘‘(1) FUNCTIONS.—A center established under
subsection (c)(1)(C) shall— ‘‘(A) develop fee schedules and other database tools that fairly and accurately reflect market rates for medical services and the geographic differences in those rates;

The devil’s in the details…..

‘‘(B) use the best available statistical methods and data processing technology to develop such fee schedules and other database tools; ‘‘(C) regularly update such fee schedules and other database tools to reflect changes in charges for medical services;
‘‘(D) make health care cost information readily available to the public through an Internet website that allows consumers to understand the amounts that health care providers in their area charge for particular medical services; and ‘‘(E) regularly publish information concerning the statistical methodologies used by the center to analyze health charge data and make such data available to researchers and policy makers.
‘‘(2) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—A center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) shall adopt by laws that ensures that the center (and all members of the governing board of the center) is independent and free from all conflicts of interest. Such bylaws shall ensure that the center is not controlled or influenced by, and does not have any corporate relation to, any individual or entity that may make or receive payments for health care services based on the center’s analysis of health care costs.
‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit a center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) to compel health insurance issuers to provide data to the center.’’.

And one tiny example of how YOUR government will raise costs not only on established transactions but new ones.

‘‘(e) STANDARD HOSPITAL CHARGES.—Each hospital operating within the United States shall for each year establish (and update) and make public (in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services provided
by the hospital, including for diagnosisrelated groups established under section 886(d)(4) of the Social Security Act.’’.

And that is after less than an hour reviewing Harry Reid’s manager’s amendment. Which brings to mind the often stated criticism that few if any in Congress have read the bill or anything related to it. Yet they are content to pass it with sixty liberal Senate votes. You have to ask yourself why?

It’s all about money and power and has nothing to do with reform of anything.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Much has been made of Senator Ben Nelson ‘holding up’ the Dems on passing scam health reform. Could it be that Senator Nelson simply wants stuff for his vote? Is this any different than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid buying Senator Mary Landrieu’s vote or Obama buying Cao’s vote? That includes the bogus Stupak Amendment in the House. So what does Senator Ben Nelson say in his own press release on the topic?

NELSON COMMENTS ON ABORTION COMPROMISE

December 17, 2009 – Today, Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson praised provisions in an abortion compromise adding new teen pregnancy initiatives and tax credits for adoption, while saying that the language working to ban public funding of abortion is not sufficient at this point.

Senator Nelson said today a proposed compromise he’s studied does not yet ensure that a longstanding federal standard barring public funding of abortion would be maintained in the Senate health care bill the Senate has been debating this month.

Nelson said without further improvements the compromise is not sufficient.

“The compromise adds important new initiatives addressing teen pregnancy and tax credits to help with adoptions,” Senator Nelson said. “These are valuable improvements that will make a positive difference and promote life. But as it is, without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient.”

Senator Nelson reiterated that he will not be able to support a cloture motion needing 60 votes to end debate on the underlying Senate bill if certain language in the bill remains. The existing language allows public funds to pay for abortion, thus relaxing the longstanding Hyde amendment.

He said today that he is open to looking at additional attempts to maintain the federal restriction on public funding of abortion.

###

If Ben Nelson is so concerned about abortion, where is his concern, outrage or even mention of the following:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT: Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds “to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.” The August 1984 announcement by President Reagan of what has become known as the “Mexico City Policy” directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to expand this limitation and withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available. The Mexico City Policy was in effect from 1985 until 1993, when it was rescinded by President Clinton. President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to “voluntary population planning” assistance provided by the Department of State.

These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations. Accordingly, I hereby revoke the Presidential memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), the Presidential memorandum of March 28, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), and the Presidential memorandum of August 29, 2003, for the Secretary of State (Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning). In addition, I direct the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to take the following actions with respect to conditions in voluntary population planning assistance and USAID grants that were imposed pursuant to either the 2001 or 2003 memoranda and that are not required by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law: (1) immediately waive such conditions in any current grants, and (2) notify current grantees, as soon as possible, that these conditions have been waived. I further direct that the Department of State and USAID immediately cease imposing these conditions in any future grants.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 23, 2009.

That’s right! With each successive change in presidential administration in the US the abortion tennis match continues. When a Republican occupies the White House the Mexico City Policy is reinstated. When a Democrat occupies the White House it is rescinded. So where’s your concern about that Mr Nelson?

Another item related to the never ending abortion debate is the Hyde Amendment. It captures the conservative compromise on the topic. Agreeing to certain limited uses of abortion for circumstances that do not demonstrate abortion’s usage as contraception for dummies.

reference to The Hyde Amendment…..

H.AMDT.185 (A008)
Amends: H.R.2518
Sponsor: Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] (offered 6/30/1993)AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to prohibit the use of any funds appropriated in the bill for any abortion except, when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

POPULAR TITLE(S):
Hyde Amendment (identified by CRS)

STATUS:

6/30/1993 3:00pm:

Amendment (A008) offered by Mr. Hyde.

6/30/1993 3:26pm:

On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by recorded vote: 255 - 178 (Roll no. 307).

6/30/1993 3:28pm:

Mr. Armey demanded a separate vote on the Hyde amendment (A008).

6/30/1993 4:00pm:

On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 256 - 171 (Roll no. 309).

And even though one could make a reasonable argument in support of the Hyde Amendment there are othe equally reasonable arguments to the contrary. Meaning those who face the above challenges still have other choices albeit problematic ones.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another sneaky Saturday in the Senate — and Teddy K’s ghost rises again (Michelle Malkin) 

The excerpt below from President Obama demonstrates the rhetoric does not always mirror performance.

So my main message in today’s meeting was very simple: that America’s banks received extraordinary assistance from American taxpayers to rebuild their industry — and now that they’re back on their feet, we expect an extraordinary commitment from them to help rebuild our economy.

Minus an extensive review of bank failures over time Mr Obama’s comment that banks are ‘back on their feet’ may be premature. A list of failed banks as of this writing from the FDIC lists 142 bank failures since the Messiah took office. If everything that happened on former presidents’ watches are their responsibility then by Mr Obama’s habit of blaming Bush it would be fair to say Obama is responsible for the 142 bank failures. That would suggest his agenda is not changing the rate of bank failures.

Likewise Mr Obama and his crew indicated their agenda would not see unemployment over eight percent. Obviously it has been over ten percent and is currently hovering at that number. That does not include those who are underemployed and may not cover the hopelessly unemployed or those whe have given up the search. Yet Obamanation continues to tout their ability to create jobs and save the economy.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has focused on ramming his so-called health insurance reform down the throats of American taxpayer whether they like it or not. His press release section is short on jobs information but there is some.

Harry likes to claim his ideas are necessary. And economists tell us that if we do nothing, those costs will continue to climb and climb.’ What Harry doesn’t tell you is his ideas will raise the cost of healthcare. Administration’s Own Actuary Says The Dem Bill Increases Health Care Costs.

A second report on the same topic is….

CMS: Reid Bill Raises Health Care Costs $234 Billion. What Harry is really means is: “We Would Do Almost Anything To Pass A Health Care Bill”

But good ol’ Harry is on the job for jobs. Washington, D.C.—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released the following statement this afternoon after his White House meeting with President Obama to discuss job creation initiatives to spur America’s economy:

“I had a productive meeting with President Obama this morning. The initiatives that he outlined in his speech yesterday and that we discussed this morning will help small businesses grow and hire new staff, invest in transportation and infrastructure, and give incentives to homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient. He has proposed positive, attainable steps to make sure more Americans have a good job to go to every morning.

Get real Harry. And just what hoops does small business have to jump through to get help from the government that usually means tradeoffs and not doing as you would if left to operate freely? Ooh, investing in transportation and infrastructure. Make work, taxpayer funded projects. Sure, Harry, that’s been done before with exactly what you would get now. Temp jobs with no economic upside beyond a temp paycheck for some. Incentives for homeowners is the same game. Give a break to one taxpayer at the expense of other taxpayers. Government does not create anything except more bills. Fondly referred to as deficits and national debt.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is on Harry’s page. Two press releases echoing the liberal agenda for false economic improvements. Item number one is here. And item nuimber two is here. More debt by use of taxpayer dollars to fund jobs for other taxpayers and those who do not pay taxes.

“Today’s meeting is further evidence how focused President Obama and Congress are on taking more action to keep creating jobs. Absolutely! All the King’s horses and all the King’s men couldn’t put the economy back together again. But they all parrot the agenda spin and sound bites.

Fight for effective and limited government. Not the crap the liberals are selling.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Liberals were right. President Bush and the rest of the GOP really screwed up with TARP. It’s part of that Republican fall from grace that allowed the current Democratic party majority in Washington. Oops, liberals were not right. They just hopped on the bandwagon with the rest of America in rejecting too big too fail and other economic nonsense.

President Obama engages in the same foolish rhetoric as other liberals do. But with his foolish talk comes more dangerous policies and action. Sometimes politiely bashing President Bush and others Obama wants it both ways. He continues to repeat his O-pinion that the Bush administration is responsible for the economic mess in the US. He rejects everything Bush. Well, not exactly. His Bush bashing does not include the walk the walk part. If Bush was so bad and TARP was part of it, why do you continue with the TARP thing Barry? Because like all socialist liberal agendas the taxpayer money in TARP can be converted to Mr Obama’s plans. He wants it to pay for his jobs scam. As do other liberals in DC and elsewhere.

Those are make work jobs. They do not add to the economy or create or save jobs. They just add to the nanny state mentality. The New Deal is here again. 70 plus years ago FDR began subsidizing agriculture. How’d that work out for American family farms? They’ve all but disappeared. Social Security is another nanny state idea. It cannot continue forever. But many have come to expect it and soon it will be gone. LBJ and Medicare is a similar story.

The porkulus spending from the ‘recovery’ act legislation had as its first transactions paying to keep staff and programs in education as well as extending Medicaid. That’s now. Not FDR, LBJ or some other lib, that’s now. Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the Obamanation are nanny staters through and through.

Nanny, nanny, nanny. Suck the life and independence out of every citizen over decades to grow the dependence on oversized government. Allow others to control your life. That’s the Obama agenda. Here’s more of what is presented here in video.

But if you are conservative and a freedom loving American you probably will like the following two versions of the next video.

And to complete the video presentation for this post the following is offered.

and

There would have been more text in this post but thanks to Allison the snow thing has kept us busy in the upper Midwest today. More posts will follow on Obama, liberals, the New Deal and the one they’re trying to impose again.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Just as the GOP has historically been characterized as blindly supporting ‘big business’ to the detriment of the ordinary citizen the Democrats have a reputation of being tax and spend liberals. Recent losses for the GOP in the 2008 presidential election and the 2006 midterms are at least in part due to a Republican fall from grace on conservative principles such as fiscal responsibility. Now that the Democrats are the majority party they have chosen to describe their Congressional minority opponents, the GOP, as the party of ‘no’. Members of the public who share the GOPs opposition to the Democratic party’s political agenda have likewise been labeled something less than American.

A topic not receiving the attention it may deserve as well as some related reports may help readers see through the fog that is politics as usual in the US Capitol. The topic has been called the Tobin tax. The prospect of a so-called Tobin tax, floated last month by U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is already provoking nervous U.S. financial companies to lobby for its defeat. Democrats, including Oregon Representative Pete DeFazio and Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, this week proposed taxing large transactions in stocks and derivatives. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the idea has a “great deal of merit.”

In general, the idea is to impose a tax on all investment transactions. As if there were not enough taxes (actually too many) on investments and everything else already. When was the last time you heard of a tax being repealed? And if you can cite an example, can you be sure it was not reborn in another piece of legislation? Far worse, an idea like the Tobin tax is appealing to tax and spend liberals for one reason. If the tax can be successfully imposed on investments, how long will it be until ALL financial transactions have a new tax?

Tax Cheat Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would have you believe he is looking out for the little guy not unlike liberals in general. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, throwing cold water on a plan by congressional Democrats to tax financial transactions, said banks and other market participants would find ways to circumvent the expense.

“There’s a real risk that retail investors, who’ve got fewer choices, they end up bearing the cost of the tax,” he said.

But that is not the end of the Geithner story on the Tobin tax. “Just to be frank about it, there’s a lot of people in the business community and the academic community who are not confident that that particular proposal would be that powerful,” Geithner said. “But we’re going to keep looking at it.”

Along with other Democrats of course, Speaker Nancy Pelosi favors the Tobin tax. Maybe in light of Geithner’s remarks she changed her story. But that doesn’t mean she is giving up on new ways to spend your money.

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Thursday that unused money in the Treasury Department’s financial rescue plan would be used to pay for a new job-creation package.

Pelosi said she favored using funds in the Troubled Asset Relief Program to finance initiatives aimed at kick-starting growth in the moribund jobs market.

In doing so, she effectively ruled out implementing a tax on financial transactions by banks and other financial institutions.

Pelosi said she still favored a tax in principle but the U.S. would have to work with other countries to implement such a levy.

Not long after the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act became law it was reported about 25% of the money went out the door. All of it was used for one of two things. Saving jobs and programs in education to payback the NEA for their votes. And more money to spend on Medicaid. Never mind that TARP funds were criticized as private sector bailouts that would never be repaid by companies considered to be too big to fail. Any concern then about taxpayer money can be ignored now that Pelosi and friends are targeting that taxpayer money for other programs in their agenda. This should make you wonder how that wonderful ‘health insurance reform’ (once called healthcare reform) will work out for you.

BTW, most Americans are not buying into Geithner’s agenda as Treasury Secretary.

Upbeat Conservative News, POLL: Geithner Performance Stinks

More voters cast their ballots in 2008 for hope and change with Obama/Biden than the ‘ticket for America’ of McCain/Palin. The main issue was the economy. A year later the economy is still in the tank. Hope and change informed us unemployment would not exceed 8% if their plan was enacted. Unemployment was above ten percent and is still at ten percent in the latest reports. Every Democrat in office in one way or another is supporting tax increases and spending in support of the liberal agenda. President Obama now owns the economy and everything else. Yet there is little evidence that the hope and change selected will be delivered. The information above demonstrates the real agenda. And you’re paying for it with fewer and fewer jobs.

Correct the mistake in 2010 and beyond.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

From Newsmax…..

AMA Members Revolt Over Obamacare Endorsement

Friday, November 6, 2009 6:54 PM
By: David A. Patten

The American Medical Association (AMA) is facing a rebellion from some of its members, who have introduced a resolution to revoke the organization’s endorsement of the Democrats’ healthcare proposals.

How about THAT endorsement, Mr President!!!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another example of how political motivation blurs the lines in the GOP on being a politician or standing for conservative values.

Republicans are unanimously opposed to the sweeping legislation.

Signaling the unease of some freshman Democrats in swing districts, Rep. John Adler of New Jersey said Friday he will vote against the bill. Mr. Adler, who won his first term in 2008 with 52% of the vote, said the House bill “does not do enough to contain costs.”

He added, “Congress should not pass a bill that costs more than $1 trillion” over 10 years.

Are Republicans unanimously opposed to HR3962 and the other healthcare reform plans proposed by the Democrats for purely political reasons or because this reform violates conservative principles? There is the distinct possibility current reforms violate sections of the US Constitution as well but that’s another story for another time. As is the question of why this unanimous GOP opposition is not demonstrated on other issues like illegal immigration?

The Democratic majority has been unable to produce party unity on healthcare reform as reports indicate the Saturday vote on HR3962 may be delayed. Vulnerable Democrats are worried about the 2010 elections. The GOP has similar concerns about their possible comeback in those same elections. And yet both parties seem unwilling to accept widespread rejection by the public and respond responsibly. The fight is purely political.

The Senate may not be able to arrange a vote until next year. That would take a toll on Obama’s first term. The liberal agenda now seems destined to ride completely on the outcome of healthcare reform legislation. If incomplete into next year their 2010 aspirations are vulnerable. But the GOP may suffer along with them as voters express their anger at the ballot box.

As this fiasco continues other issues suffer from neglect, incompetence or both. The President’s support is fading. Congressional approval ratings are still in the tank. There is no economic recovery. Unemployment has reached a new high above 10% and some say it is actually higher. And all politicians can do is play politics with an issue most regard as secondary at best.

Shelve the damn healthcare issue for now. Attend to national security, national defense, border control, immigration enforcement and domestic policy related to economic matters. In other words, limited government that reduces taxes, national debt, deficits and spending. If those items are ever effectively solved then revisit healthcare reform if anyone other than liberal politicians is interested.

Until then, get conservative or get out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you are not motivated to pour over thousands of pages of legislation to determine for yourself how healthcare reform will affect you here’s an alternative. On October 29, 2009 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi unveiled the latest bill aimed at passage in the House of Representatives in order to pursue President Obama’s political agenda. Her announcement reflected in a press release available on her website provides insight into an impossible dream.

According to Pelosi……

“This is why this legislation is important: affordability for our middle-class that lower costs for every patient, reins in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, limits out of pocket costs, and lifts the cap on what insurance companies cover each year.

Translation::

Every item in the quote above suggests the cost to the patient for healthcare will be reduced or limited from whatever it is now. If the patient is not going to pay the increasing costs for their own healthcare, who will? You might want the answer to that question. And even if you believe the insurance companies are the villains as the liberals suggest, you cannot be so naive as to think there are no legitimate costs to providing healthcare insurance. And those costs are rising.

If you do nothing to lower the actual cost of providing healthcare how do you lower the cost to the patient? You get someone else to pay it for them. And that may include the patient themselves in terms of new taxes on their income, etc. In addition, if you expect the insurance company to absorb the increasing costs of healthcare with no mechanism for actually lowering the costs, they will go out of business.

Another claim by Pelosi…..

“That said, the bill is fiscally sound. It will not add one dime to the deficit as it expands coverage, implements key insurance reforms, and promotes prevention and wellness across the health system. The bill will expand coverage, including a public option to boost choice and competition in the health insurance reform.

Translation:

The key here is Pelosi claims it will ‘expand coverage’ and yet magically ‘not add one dime to the deficit’. So the Speaker claims costs will be reduced for patients and coverage will be expanded yet there will be no increase in the deficit. You have to ask yourself how that is possible? She says reform will ‘rein in premiums, co-pays and deductibles’. Out of pocket expenses will be lowered and insurance coverage will be expanded. How does she do that without someone else to pay for it? The math does not work. And don’t think for a minute that the wealthy in this country can cover the entire tab for what the liberals propose.

And yet another claim by Pelosi…..

“Good morning. It is with great pride and with great humility that we come before you to follow in the footsteps of those who gave our country Social Security and then Medicare, and now universal, quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

This may be the only true statement in the Speaker’s press release. Remember how Congress dealt with Social Security and Medicare in terms of the budget. Sometimes it was on the budget. And sometimes it was off budget. The reason was its drag on government accounting. As the baby boom grew the population and the ratio of those paying for benefits versus those receiving benefits headed toward insolvency. Deficits were hidden by taking the costs off budget.

What? You thought Nancy could make the costs go away by waving her magic wand?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

source: http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1424

Time to ratchet up contact to your elected reps. As the healthcare reform saga continues in the nation’s capital those in the majority confirm the loyal opposition is not the party of ‘no’ but the only ones trying to eliminate insane portions of current proposals in Congress.

Senate Republicans on Wednesday failed in their bids to strengthen provisions to prevent both taxpayer funding of abortions and illegal immigrants from obtaining access to government tax credits in the health care reform bill.

There you go. Taxpayer funding of abortions and opening the door wider for illegals to obtain more healthcare services meaning billions of public funds will extend benefits to those who are citizens of a country other than the United States. This improves healthcare for Americans how?

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, hoping to cull support for his reform proposal, told Democrats he’s open to reworking some of the new taxes in the bill, including the tax on high-valued insurance plans

Harry Reid and company have the task of reconciling two Senate committee bills before they reach the Senate floor next week. How is that going to happen based on the markup process that has been the longest in fifteen years? Rather than proposing legislation that would benefit Americans across the board there is a mix of takeaways and givebacks to accommodate the political agendas of various politicians. There is no way this so-called reform will improve healthcare in the United States. But it will raise taxes.

The only certain outcome of liberal healthcare reform is more taxes and less control for individuals over their healthcare decisions. Each version proposed in Congress has come with a slightly lower estimate on costs over the life of the legislation. Based on previous experience with government forecasts for government programs with the possible exception of the CBO indicate the actual costs will exceed any current estimates. The CBO can only predict based on information available at the time and since the various versions change on an almost daily basis that task is made nearly impossible. You can be sure it will cost more than anyone will tell you now.

More taxes, spending, deficits and national debt totals that will only benefit those not paying the bills as well as forcing taxpayers to cover the cost of many items that they oppose. There is simply no benefit to current healthcare reform proposals except for those making them. It’s a political power grab and a dangerous game to play given mounting debt and financial uncertainty. The money to pay for it does not come out of the sky but the pockets of Americans who simply cannot afford more expense during a recession. Nor can they afford to pass this debt on to their children and grandchildren. Especially when those future generations will likely gain nothing from the massive expense.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Democrat Sen. Tom Carper: Read the bill? Are you kidding me! (Michelle Malkin)

Upbeat Conservative News, Dems Don’t Understand Health Bill